UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4608

PERNELL PARKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

James C. Fox, Chief District Judge.

(CR-95-183-F)

Submitted: May 29, 1997

Decided: June 17, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert H. Hale, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States

Attorney, Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant United States Attorney,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Pernell Parker appeals the district court's summary order finding

him guilty of criminal contempt as a result of disruptive outbursts. A

review of the record reveals that Parker's outbursts occurred in open

court, were intentional, and in fact obstructed the administration of

justice. During sentencing, Parker disrupted the proceedings by

announcing to the court that he would not accept probation. The court

admonished Parker and after his outbursts continued, the court found

him in contempt of court. The court agreed to revisit the issue at the

end of the day.

After concluding its other sentencing matters, the court directed the

United States Marshal to escort Parker back into the courtroom so that

the court could revisit the contempt issue prior to sentencing him. Parker continued his tirade against the court, at which time the court

attempted to advise Parker of the nature of summary contempt, the

consequences, and his rights. Parker responded by stating that he had

no respect for the court. The court then found Parker in contempt of

court and sentenced him to imprisonment for six months, to be served

consecutively to any previously imposed sentences. The court also

recommended that Parker receive mental health evaluations during his

incarceration for the contempt conviction.

Parker claims that the court abused its discretion by finding him in

contempt after he first announced that he would not accept probation.

As Parker acknowledges, in reviewing a summary contempt conviction, this court limits its review to the facts and circumstances cited

by the district court in support of the conviction. See Eaton v. Tulsa,

415 U.S. 697, 698-99 (1974). It is clear from the record that the district court, contrary to Parker's assertions, considered the entire colloquy between Parker and the court prior to sentencing Parker for

contempt of court. Thus, based on a review of the facts and circumstances outlined in the district court's contempt order, we find that

Parker's actions interfered with the administration of justice and conclude that the district court's determination that Parker was in contempt of court was not an abuse of discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 401(1)

(1994); see also United States v. Warlick, 742 F.2d 113, 115-16 (4th

 2
Cir. 1984); In re Chaplain, 621 F.2d 1272, 1276 (4th Cir. 1980) (in

banc).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's use of its summary contempt powers pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3